Between Integration and Exclusion  Identity on the Sidelines

An image of two people holding a jersey together that bears the name of German national team player Özil. © Goethe-Institut, Ricardo Roa

Soccer is more than a game — it often becomes a mirror of larger social debates. Few other spaces reflect as clearly how a society negotiates diversity. The sport’s immense emotional power is especially evident in the national team, where questions of integration and belonging become visible.

Since the early 2000s, players with migrant backgrounds have become an integral part of Germany’s national team. The issue continues to spark debate, as these players do not always align with traditional notions of national identity — whether in terms of appearance, behavior, or other commonly associated attributes. Few cases illustrate as clearly as that of Mesut Özil how soccer can foster both unity and division: a player who was once celebrated as a model example of the successful integration of people with migrant backgrounds in Germany.

Home Exists in the Plural, Too

Born to Turkish immigrant parents, Mesut Özil grew up in modest circumstances in the working-class city of Gelsenkirchen. He impressively fulfilled his dream of becoming a professional soccer player. Özil went on to play for global clubs such as Real Madrid and Arsenal and crowned his career by winning the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil with Germany’s national team.
I have two hearts, one German and one Turkish.
Mesut Özil
Özil was one of many German national team players with migrant backgrounds who faced a choice between representing Germany or another country. His decision to play for Germany was viewed negatively by parts of Germany’s large Turkish-German community. Some branded him a “traitor” for identifying with the country where he had grown up, attended school, and received his soccer training.

Özil stood firm against this backlash. His decision to represent Germany inevitably carried a political dimension, particularly in the context of debates about social integration. That became unmistakably clear on October 8, 2010, when Germany faced Turkey in a European Cup qualifier in Berlin. Özil was relentlessly booed and subjected to verbal abuse by Turkish fans. As if that were not enough, it was Özil himself who scored the second goal in Germany’s eventual 3–0 victory.

The Sociopolitical Dimension

In the years that followed, a narrative emerged suggesting that Özil should also embody so-called “German virtues” and distance himself entirely from his Turkish cultural background. That expectation ultimately became his undoing when, ahead of the 2018 World Cup, he agreed to pose for a photo with the controversial Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The moral implications of the gesture were hard to ignore, given Erdoğan’s record of curbing press freedom and imprisoning political opponents during his time in office after taking power in 2003.

In Germany, the incident sparked an intense public debate. Much of the discussion focused less on the photo itself than on the claim that Özil was somehow incompatible with German culture. This narrative also fueled the mistaken perception that Özil and his teammate İlkay Gündoğan were largely to blame for Germany’s early exit from the tournament. Although the controversy caused tension and sparked intense debate within the team, Özil performed well at the 2018 World Cup — unlike several members of Germany’s 2014 championship squad, who performed far below expectations. Head coach Joachim Löw also made a series of tactical miscalculations. Media coverage, however, focused less on the failure of the team as a whole than on blaming Özil alone. He became the symbol of Germany’s collapse.

While Özil was criticized for failing in his role as a public figure by aligning himself with the political messaging of an autocratic leader, the German Football Association (DFB) was accused of failing to adequately protect its players from the increasingly distorted public debate. Ultimately, the conflict led to a complete breakdown in the relationship between Özil and the DFB. For both sides, the fallout resulted in significant damage to their public image. In the aftermath of Germany’s disastrous World Cup performance, Özil also launched a scathing attack of his own. He claimed that, in the eyes of then-DFB president Reinhard Grindel and his supporters, he was “German when we win, but an immigrant when we lose.
Özil distanced himself completely from Germany, despite the fact that many people in the country condemned the hostility directed at him — most notably then-national team coach Joachim Löw, who continued to express his full confidence in Özil despite the surrounding controversy.

Mesut Özil could have become a symbol of a modern, multilayered sense of belonging for many young players. Instead, however, a different image took hold: that of the “unintegrated Turk.” What began as a label primarily promoted by right-wing populist circles gradually came to be reinforced by Özil himself through his increasingly demonstrative closeness to Erdoğan. More recently, Özil also drew criticism for personal decisions, such as getting a tattoo linked to the “Grey Wolves,” a movement associated with far-right extremism in Turkey. In doing so, public perception of him shifted decisively — from a model of successful integration to a projection figure for broader social conflicts.

From the Competition for Talent to the Question of Belonging

The case of Özil had long since become more than just a political issue — it also put social cohesion in Germany to the test, along with broader questions of belonging, especially given the large number of players with migrant backgrounds in Germany’s youth national teams. Players with migrant backgrounds are only allowed to switch national associations as long as they have not yet played an official competitive match for the senior national team. In recent years, the federation’s main goal has been to win over the many youth players for whom this applies, ensuring that they will continue to wear the eagle on their jersey in the future. From the players’ perspective, the decision involves not only the pride of representing a country, but also considerations about opportunity and career prospects. Among the most important factors are, on the one hand, the chances of being called up to the national team — something that is often easier with less successful soccer nations than with a bigger one. On the other hand, players are sometimes accused of choosing a soccer nation such as Germany primarily to improve their chances of winning a World Cup. Players with migrant backgrounds in particular are repeatedly suspected of making such decisions out of career calculation rather than a genuine sense of belonging or attachment to a homeland.

Debates over players with dual citizenship have also erupted in other countries and national teams — including soccer-obsessed Mexico. While players with foreign roots were once accused of lacking full commitment, perceptions have since shifted significantly. Asked about the possible inclusion of players with migrant backgrounds in Mexico’s World Cup squad, national team coach Javier Aguirre said: “A good player — if he fulfills all the requirements, he is as Mexican as you or me — and then he belongs on the team.

Social Cohesion as the Key to Success

Ultimately, the Özil case shows that integration is a two-way process. German soccer fans, in particular, may need to let go of the illusion that a national team should represent the same values embodied by the so-called “real men” of 30 years ago, when Germany was still seen as a soccer nation defined above all by grit and toughness. The contradictions within this line of argument become especially clear when “new identity markers” — such as the possession-based style of play celebrated during Germany’s victorious 2014 World Cup campaign — are initially embraced, only for players’ sense of belonging to suddenly be questioned after a poor tournament or a public misstep by individual team members. Here, justified criticism of individual behavior becomes entangled with emotional judgments about about what is happening on the field.
At the same time, the same can be said of parts of the Turkish fans in Germany, some of whom refuse to acknowledge their own belonging to Germany and, in turn, reproduce these attitudes toward players like Özil. Players themselves also bear responsibility and must confront their role as public figures and role models. Clear public communication and greater cultural sensitivity would not justify actions like these, but they could at least foster a better understanding of the motivations behind them — and, in doing so, help tone down the debate. Only a tolerant environment on all sides can ensure stronger youth development and talent cultivation in German soccer in the future. Otherwise, cases like that of Mesut Özil will continue to fuel social division.

More about this topic